What is the test for assessing future income loss in a personal injury case?

In Schenker v. Scott, 2014 BCCA 203, the court noted that comparisons to awards in somewhat similar cases are of limited utility in assessing damages for awards of future loss. Rather, the trial court must make a "reasoned analysis to explain and justify the award" rather than simply adverting to the governing principles and then "plucking a number from the air". In that regard the court recommended at paras. 53-55, 70: • the findings of fact in the case should be expressly related to the actual assessment of damages; • the court should undertake a "clear analysis of whether [the plaintiff] proved a substantial possibility of future income loss derived from [his/her] diminished marketability [or other components of any loss of earning capacity]"; • "[m]athematical, statistical or economic evidence, where available, may be of assistance in assessing damages"; • the court should provide an "explicit analysis of the general level of earnings [the plaintiff] would have realistically achieved, but for the accident, taking into account [his/her] intentions and the probabilities of achieving them"; • this should be followed by a "projection of [the plaintiff's] likely future earnings taking into account [the] injuries and other relevant contingencies"; • as part of this last step, if the court concludes that the plaintiff may have to accept less than full-time work in the future as a result of her his or her injuries, the court must assess the probability of that occurring and the extent to which the plaintiff will be restricted to such part-time work; and • if parties provided the court with expert evidence from economists to assist in the valuation of lost capacity, the court should explain its relevance and what use, if any, the court ultimately makes of it.